NRL head of football Brian Canavan has instructed referees to crack down on players deliberately passing the ball into defending players at the ruck.

Starting with Thursday night's clash at Suncorp Stadium between Brisbane and Parramatta, referees will now rule that if a dummy-half player "deliberately passes the ball into a defending player caught in and around the ruck who is not actively taking part in the play, the act will be deemed to be contrary to the true spirit of the game".

Referees will award a penalty against the attacking team and the NRL has informed all clubs of the directive.

"What we have seen recently is a bad look for the game, and in simple terms, not in the spirit of the game," Canavan said.

"In these instances, if a player deliberately throws the ball into another, the referees will give a penalty to the opposition team.

Coaches Corner: Edge defence and attack

"This does not absolve a defender of his responsibilities to clear the ruck and the defending team will still be penalised if it is deemed that they are interfering with play."

Referees have also been instructed to "communicate warnings or cautions for repeated infringements to captains more efficiently" to minimise delays in restarting play.

There has been criticism this season that captains are deliberately slowing play down when their team has conceded a penalty in order to give their teammates a breather before their next defensive set.

Sharks hooker James Segeyaro was caught out when he tried to pass the ball into a Canberra defender two weeks ago late in the win over the Raiders but missed his target and the ball sailed over the sideline.

"It's a grey area to be honest.

"If someone is in the ruck and you're trying to throw the ball and it hits them, obviously they can't be invisible."

They should not have made it a penalty, because as noted the refs will need to interpret intent. There's going to be an instance where a player legit passes the ball and it hits someone, and refs might call a penalty anyway.

It certainly discourages attempts to milk the penalty.

But really they should have just made it play-on, i.e. a player clearly out of the ruck, if you pass into him, nothing happens, play on, as in he's a non-competing obstacle like a goal post. That will mean intent of the DH won't matter, and if you are dumb enough to try the pass you will be penalised for time on that tackle, and if you do it by accident, nobody gets penalised.

They should not have made it a penalty, because as noted the refs will need to interpret intent. There's going to be an instance where a player legit passes the ball and it hits someone, and refs might call a penalty anyway.

It certainly discourages attempts to milk the penalty.

But really they should have just made it play-on, i.e. a player clearly out of the ruck, if you pass into him, nothing happens, play on, as in he's a non-competing obstacle like a goal post. That will mean intent of the DH won't matter, and if you are dumb enough to try the pass you will be penalised for time on that tackle, and if you do it by accident, nobody gets penalised.

It's really not that hard to interpret intent. There was one last weekend where the ball was literally being passed to no one. It can't just be play on, it's a penalty one way or the other because the offside defender shouldn't have any opportunity to impede the attack. The refs may get some wrong now and then but this should get rid of the really obvious milking plays that have been going on which have been an embarrassment.

They should not have made it a penalty, because as noted the refs will need to interpret intent. There's going to be an instance where a player legit passes the ball and it hits someone, and refs might call a penalty anyway.

It certainly discourages attempts to milk the penalty.

But really they should have just made it play-on, i.e. a player clearly out of the ruck, if you pass into him, nothing happens, play on, as in he's a non-competing obstacle like a goal post. That will mean intent of the DH won't matter, and if you are dumb enough to try the pass you will be penalised for time on that tackle, and if you do it by accident, nobody gets penalised.

They should not have made it a penalty, because as noted the refs will need to interpret intent. There's going to be an instance where a player legit passes the ball and it hits someone, and refs might call a penalty anyway.

It certainly discourages attempts to milk the penalty.

But really they should have just made it play-on, i.e. a player clearly out of the ruck, if you pass into him, nothing happens, play on, as in he's a non-competing obstacle like a goal post. That will mean intent of the DH won't matter, and if you are dumb enough to try the pass you will be penalised for time on that tackle, and if you do it by accident, nobody gets penalised.

It's really not that hard to interpret intent. There was one last weekend where the ball was literally being passed to no one. It can't just be play on, it's a penalty one way or the other because the offside defender shouldn't have any opportunity to impede the attack. The refs may get some wrong now and then but this should get rid of the really obvious milking plays that have been going on which have been an embarrassment.

The obvious ones like last week where he bounced it off him on the ground only happened because he knew the ref had to blow a penalty.
You're not going to get the blatant ones anymore, which is going to create a grey area where refs will have to read minds by trying to decide intent.
Hopefully we're all wrong and this just clears up this whole area.

I'm showing my age here, but I remember Allan Fallah doing this one year in the late 80's. Early on the season he got a few penalties but by mid season the refs just called play on. We got no advantage, actually got a disadvantage so he stopped. That was the end of it for 30 years.
Come this year the hamstrung refs or just plain stupid refs felt obliged to give penalties for it. Theres no common sense anymore.

Anyone who just watched the Dragons V Dogs game would have seen the first wrong call since they changed the rule.
Jackson was loitering in between the dummy half and intended recipient of the ball on his knees clearly in the way and the ball got passed into him.
Everybody held their breath wondering what the ref was going to rule and he penalised the Dragons player for deliberately passing it into him. WRONG CALL!!!!
Jackson made no effort to move and was in the way, should have been a Dragons penalty.

A perfect example of the problem that they've now created around this stupid rule change. The first call they've had to make and they stuff it up.

Anyone who just watched the Dragons V Dogs game would have seen the first wrong call since they changed the rule.
Jackson was loitering in between the dummy half and intended recipient of the ball on his knees clearly in the way and the ball got passed into him.
Everybody held their breath wondering what the ref was going to rule and he penalised the Dragons player for deliberately passing it into him. WRONG CALL!!!!
Jackson made no effort to move and was in the way, should have been a Dragons penalty.

A perfect example of the problem that they've now created around this stupid rule change. The first call they've had to make and they stuff it up.

Would you have thought these palookas wouldn't stuff it up. They would have been 1/40 on with sportsbet.

It was a terrible call. If Jackson had been laying flat & trying to avoid the play and the dummy half rolled the ball into him, I could have lived with the penalty under the new interpretation. He basically kneeled in the way, looked at the dummy half and dared him to pass it.

We should stand 2 players offside between the dummy half and first receiver.

So I am trying to understand the rules, if you are a metre offside, you are penalised because you force the attacking team to play away from you. But if you are 10m offside and in the middle of the ruck, the attacking team must work to avoid you, otherwise they get penalised.

You could hire monkeys to run this game and they couldn't do as bad a job as Greenburg and co.